Green Building Market Impact Report - 2010

by ROB WATSON
Executive Editor
REPORT
2010
GREEN BUILDING
IMPACT
MARKET
A
N
D
Dening and accelerating the business of sustainability.
2 2010 GreenBiz Group Inc. (www.greenbizgroup.com). May be reproduced for noncommercial
purposes only, provided credit is given to GreenBiz Group Inc. and includes this copyright notice.
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
s
Researched and Written by Rob Watson
For GreenBiz Group:
Joel Makower, Chairman and Executive Editor
Matthew Wheeland, Managing Editor
Leslie Guevarra, Associate Editor
Pete May, Chief Executive Ofcer
Eric Faurot, President and Chief Strategist
Samuel Smith, Marketing Manager
Infographics by Seth Fields
Thanks to Our Sponsors:
2010 GreenBiz Group Inc. (www.greenbizgroup.com). May be reproduced for
noncommercial purposes only, provided credit is given to GreenBiz Group Inc.
and includes this copyright notice.
Executive Summary ............................................................................. 3
LEED Market Trends ...................................................................................5
Homes ......................................................................................................11
International Market .................................................................................14
Site and Land Use Impacts .......................................................................16
Water Efciency Impacts ..........................................................................19
Energy Impacts .........................................................................................21
Materials Impacts .....................................................................................29
Indoor Environmental Quality ..................................................................31
The Big Picture .........................................................................................34
Appendix: Methodology ................................................................... 37
About the Author .....................................................................................43
About the sponsors ..................................................................................44
About GreenBiz Group .............................................................................45
Confounded Expectations Redux Were really wearing this one out, using
it two years in a row, but theres just no way around it The great American
philosopher Yogi Berra once noted: Its tough to make predictions, especially
about the future. In 2009, we assumed that the phenomenal growth we had
seen the previous three years was not abnormal (even though it exceeded the
total new oor area added in the US last year) and would somehow continue in
some fashion going forward. Clearly, economic realities proved us wrong.
Our predictions of continued strong growth in LEED registrations were
completely turned on their head as 2010 brought precipitous declines.
Nonetheless, our certications forecast remain steadfast: we came close with last
years total oor area prediction, though LEED New Construction and LEED Core
& Shell did not grow as much as anticipated.
New Certications Break Records, but Falls Short of Registration Boom
There is good news on the certication front: This years total certied oor area
nearly equals the previous ten years certied oor area combined. Last year,
LEED for Existing Buildings Operations and Maintenance (EBOM) certied half
(49 percent) of all the domestic oor area in the LEED system and a quarter
of the international projects to equal the certied oor area of LEED for New
Construction (NC) and LEED for Core & Shell (CS) combined.
Also, given that certications almost equaled registrations this year, even more
impressive is that certied newly-built LEED oor area exceeded 20 percent of
new construction additions. All this notwithstanding, in order to keep pace with
earlier registration rates, certications were going to have to triple instead of
only double. So, the sad result is that the percent of LEED projects graduating
to certication fell below the 70 percent goal that we believe represents a
healthy graduation rate.
Appropriately Mixed Metaphors: Registrations Tank, but Is that Really So
Bad? Any green lifeboat we were positing last year was simply a mirage.
The spike of registrations most likely was some sort of panic or irrational
exuberance driven by the sunsetting of Version 2.2 or some last-ditch gambit
to somehow ride the green wave into nancing or whatever.
Our year-end forecast of LEED registrations has them down almost 70 percent
compared to last year (NC and CS are off 80 percent and 90 percent in the U.S.
respectively). As bad as that sounds, these lower registration numbers actually
represent about 22 percent of the total expected new oor area to be added
this year, which puts LEED near the top of its anticipated full market saturation
point of 25 percent of new construction.
LEED EB is the Certication Champion, CI Mirrors LEED Overall In 2010
LEED EBOM certied almost 50 percent more oor areaover 80 million square
feetthan did LEED NC, growing nearly 80 percent year on year. Cumulatively,
since its launch in 2004, LEED EBOM has certied nearly the same total oor
area as LEED NC since its launch in 2000. In spite of this success, we believe
that LEED EBOM is less than halfway to where it needs to be to sufciently
contribute to minimizing climate change.
LEED CI showed similar schizophrenia as the rest of the system, growing
certied oor area by nearly 60 percent, while registered oor area declined by
65 percent.
Executive Summary ............................................................................. 3
LEED Market Trends ...................................................................................5
Homes ......................................................................................................11
International Market .................................................................................14
Site and Land Use Impacts .......................................................................16
Water Efciency Impacts ..........................................................................19
Energy Impacts .........................................................................................21
Materials Impacts .....................................................................................29
Indoor Environmental Quality ..................................................................31
The Big Picture .........................................................................................34
Appendix: Methodology ................................................................... 37
About the Author .....................................................................................43
About the sponsors ..................................................................................44
About GreenBiz Group .............................................................................45
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e

S
u
m
m
a
r
y
ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS
Now that we have credit achievement tallies for all projects certied after 2006,
we have a much better handle on LEED environmental performance this year.
Unfortunately, it is clear that this years lower oor area forecast dramatically
shrinks the long-term environmental impact of the standard.
Land & Site Impacts Due to additional evidence that location efcient
development has a bigger VMT impact than we used before and due to the
large jump in LEED-certied oor area in 2010, we increased our estimate of
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions to 1.4 billion VMT to date vs. 400 million
from 2008. By 2030, the annual gasoline savings equal our current imports
from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia together; impressive, though not nearly as
much as we forecast last year. Although its still too early to know how the heavy
emphasis on location efciency in LEED 2009 will inuence the market, there
has been a 20 percent shift toward more location-efcient projects since 2007.
These gasoline savings result in impressive (carbon dioxide) CO
2
reductions: 14
million tons to date, growing to 190 million tons in 2030. When coupled with
estimated building energy efciency and renewable energy savings, these CO
2

reductions amount to about 6 percent of current annual CO
2
pollution.
Water Impacts Total water savings this year are signicantly higher than
last year, due to increased certied oor area plus a modest increase in the
penetration of water-saving measures across most of the LEED standards. Total
water savings from LEED through 2010 is 33 billion gallons, comprising 0.5
percent of annual non-residential water use.
But by 2030, LEED will result in over 565 billion gallons of saved water, which
represent a respectable 14 percent reduction of annual non-residential water
use. Thats only about half of what we forecast previously, since total predicted
LEED oor area in 2030 decreased by about 60 percent compared with last
years estimates. These gures may go up as the more stringent requirements of
LEED 2009 begin to be felt.
Energy Impacts Buildings use more energy than any other human activity, and
the building sectors share of global energy use continues to grow. It will not be
possible to effectively address carbon pollution and climate change without an
aggressive, concerted effort to reduce energy consumption in buildings. LEED is
doing OK at making a difference, but much more needs to be done, both within
LEED and complementary activities such as increased mandatory standards.
We estimate that the current annual CO
2
savings from LEED buildings is
approximately 8 million tons from energy efciency and renewables. This gure
grows to 64 million tons per year by 2020 and almost 170 million tons annually
by 2030, which is about 3 percent of our current annual CO
2
footprint. While the
fact that these savings show up at all is impressive, given our massive carbon
budget. But comparing a 3 percent reduction in 2030 to the needed 80 percent
in 2050 seems pretty daunting.
Materials Impacts Based on average materials costs, green building materials
represented approximately $14.5 billion in cumulative spending through 2010,
reaching nearly $120 billion by 2030. Moreover, the embodied energy in
buildings that are renovated instead of demolished by 2030 is expected to save
the oil equivalent of over 200 million barrels -- as much energy as we import
In spite of this
success, we believe
that LEED EBOM
is less than halfway
to where it needs
to be to sufciently
contribute to
minimizing climate
change.
this year from Russia. In addition, an average of over 60 percent of C&D Waste
is diverted from LEED projects, totaling almost 53 million tons to date and
exceeding 430 million tons per year by 2030.
IEQ Impacts While operational savings are real and important, the nancial
benets in LEED are largely achieved through the enhancement of employee
productivity: Salaries represent approximately 90 percent of the money ow
through a building. Although our oor area projections are down, and as a result
the total employees affected by LEED is lower, we feel that the preponderance
of evidence allows us to increase the estimated productivity benets, which
keeps the total economic impact of LEED quite similar to last year.
We estimate that an average of more than 1.5 million employees are enjoying
improved indoor environments in LEED buildings at present. Looking ahead,
the green building workforce is expected to approach 5 million by 2020, and
almost 17 million strong by 2030. The productivity benets from LEED buildings
to date are estimated at $6.4 billion and we expect this number to exceed $22
billion by 2020, and nearly reach $75 billion by 2030.

LEED MARKET TRENDS
It turns out that the green lifeboat wasnt as big as we originally assumed. In
the 2009 Green Building Market and Impact Report, we supposed that the
huge pulse of projects into the LEED system was in part due to the hopes of
owners and developers that green certication would somehow keep them
from drowning in the emerging economic chaos. Like a brilliant chemically
induced insight that we were sure would change everything, we projected that
these phenomenal numbers would continue into the future. But they didnt.
Now in the sober light of day, it seems that, until this year, a sort of irrational
exuberance has gripped the market since 2007, with LEEDs penetration of
cumulative new construction reaching 54 percent during this period.
If we had just stuck with our estimates of LEED environmental performance and
market penetration to date, we would not be in the position of having to admit
that last years irrationally exuberant estimates of growth in LEED going forward
were just at-out wrong. Its cold comfort to say that were in good company
considering how badly others have forecast the circumstances in which we have
found ourselves in the last two years. Regardless, we have a great deal more
information about how LEED-certied buildings earned their plaques, which
gives us greater certainty about certied buildings environmental performance.
Newsash: LEED is no longer a new construction standard. Domestically, the
total new oor area in LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance
in both registrations and certications exceeds all oor area in LEED for New
Construction, plus LEED for Core and Shell, plus LEED Schools (together, the
building design and construction standards) for the rst time. As recently as
2007, BD&C standards were 80 percent of the oor area in LEED. Globally,
EBOM represented 46 percent of certications, while BD&C standards
comprised about 54 percent of the certied oor area this year and over 60
percent of registered oor area.
L
E
E
D

M
a
r
k
e
t

T
r
e
n
d
s

This year still saw the addition of over 800 million square feet of registered oor
areaabout 35 percent overseasfor a cumulative total of over 7 billion square
feet of registered oor area worldwide since LEED was launched in 2000
1
.
Eight hundred million square feet seems like a large number, and it is, until you
realize that total registered oor area anticipated for 2010 declined by almost 70
percent compared to last years totals. Cumulatively, we estimate that nearly 1.2
billion square feet will have been certied by the end of the year.
The growth of LEED this year was quite bifurcated between certication and
registration. Certication continued its torrid paceexceeding last years record
by over 50 percentand we project that the newly certied oor area added
this year will nearly equal all certied oor area for the previous ten years.
Cumulatively, LEED-certied buildings now total more than 1 billion square feet.
A total of 7 billion square feet is registered in LEED, about 2 billion of which (28
percent) is outside the United States. But, unlike the expansion of certications
in 2010, registrations dropped like a stonefor the rst time in LEEDs history
compared with 2008 and 2009, not quite even reaching the registration totals
This year still saw
the addition of over
800 million square
feet of certied
and registered
oor area for a
cumulative total of
7 billion square feet
Worldwide since
LEED was launched
in 2000.
1
In last years report we mistakenly added total certied with total registered oor area, when certied
oor area should have been a subset. The LEED system had nearly 6.1 billion square feet, not 7 billion as
reported.
449
1,125
6,715
18,965
430
2,020
3,453
143
438
1,804
65
Cumulative LEED NC Certied SF Cumulative LEED CS Certied SF Cumulative LEED CI Certied SF Cumulative LEED EB Certied SF
2010 2020 2030
GBMIR Floor Area Forecast
(in Millions of Square Feet)
2,995
of 2007. To be fair, the entire non-residential market has tanked since 2007,
perhaps with the exception of schools and government projects, starting about
35 percent less oor area in 2010. Indeed, it is now apparent that the last years
surge in registrations was an aberration caused by the sunsetting of Version 2.2.
However, there is a silver lining in all this: 2010 NC/CS/Schools registrations still
exceeded 20 percent of new construction starts, which is consistent with the
market penetration expected and desired for the system.
Not unexpectedly, USGBCs membership counts have also suffered somewhat
over the last year, declining more than 15 percent from its early-2009 high of
approximately 20,000. These appear to be principally smaller rms and current
member retention rates are still quite healthy, though below those of the last
couple of years.
Certications With this years continued impressive expansion, certications
cumulatively represent approximately 14 percent of cumulative registered oor
area based on a direct year-to-year comparison.
2
As we have noted in previous
reports, certications lag registrations due to the fact that it takes some time for
projects to work their way through the systemwhat we call the certication
period, which can last over 9 years in some cases.
2010 LEED Certied Floor Area CHANGES vs. 2009
3
Domestic International All Projects
EBOM 80% 85% 80%
NC (incl Retail) 24% 53% 27%
CS 48% 39% 46%
CI 45% 251% 58%
Schools 377% 1536% 393%
LEED System 51% 64% 52%
In an ideal world, we would like to see at least a 70 percent graduation rate
(registered projects become certied) which would show that most projects by
and large are registering because of true intent to certify, not simply to ride the
LEED marketing bandwagon. Why do we say 70 percent is acceptable and not
higher (or lower for that matter)?
In our experience, there are any number of reasons why projects do not move
from registration to certication during their development and construction
timeline: a late-registering owner may not wish to spend the money modifying
an existing design or, in some cases, partially-built building; other times a
decision to relocate may be made after a project is registered or nancing may
have fallen though or necessary permits were failed to be secured and of course
some projects simply fail to implement enough green measures to certify. Given
the recent economic chaos, compounded by irrational exuberance, the rate
of registered projects failing to certify is bound to be much higher in the next
couple of years.
Certication
continued its torrid
paceexceeding
last years record by
over 50 percent
and we project that
the newly certied
oor area added
this year will nearly
equal all certied
oor area for the
previous ten years.
2
Comparing cumulative 2010 certied oor area with 2010 cumulative registered oor area.
3
Percentage changes are relative to the previous year for each rating system and not additive.
Last year we reported that LEED exceeded a 70 percent graduation rate based
on a three-year graduation cycle. That is most denitely not the case this year.
As we noted in 2009:
However, in order to keep up with the pace of registrations, certications
in 2010 will need to triple compared to 2009. There is sufcient capacity
in the certication pipeline, but it remains to be seen what impact the
economy has and whether acceptable graduation rates can continue.
Although impressive, this years increase in certied oor area could not
keep pace with the expansion of registered oor area begun in 2007. This
year, we have more accurate data on the certication period for each of the
LEED standards, as shown in the table below. Applying these periods to the
registration and certication of each standard yields a rough graduation rate.
As can be seen from the table, a two-year-or-less graduation rate is most
appropriate for all but LEED NC. For this reason, most standards decreased
their graduation rate against last years report. Given the strong pulse of projects
that came in during 2007-2009, its still too early to fully know what the eventual
graduation rate is, but USGBC analysis estimates that over the long-term it
should be about 60 percent, which may be a bit high compared with what weve
seen so far, but not unreasonable.
4
It was the Worst of Forecasts In the 2009 Green Building Market & Impact
Report we talked about lifeboats and other metaphors for what we were seeing
in terms of LEED registration growththe growth in certications had a very
rational explanation; the USGBC was starting to get good at itbut maybe it
was just panic. Panic about the sunset of a familiar system, panic about needing
some sort of external imprimatur to get nancing, we dont know. What we do
know is that the doldrums that hit the real estate market overall have nally
caught up with LEED registration numbers in complete contravention of what
happened last year. So, how do we look forward 20 years? More on that in the
Methodology section.
Its About Operations, Stupid Last year LEED EBOM surpassed LEED NC for
the rst time and this year there is no question that this is the domestic trend.
This year, EBOM surpassed BD&C (NC, CS + Schools) combined for both
registered and certied oor area in the U.S., though BD&C still rules overseas.
EBOM certied oor area grew by 80 percent compared with last year. New
oor area registered in EBOM decreased by 55 percenta precipitous decline,
Although
impressive, this
years increase in
certied oor area
could not keep pace
with the expansion
of registered oor
area begun in 2007.
LEED Standard LEED EBOM LEED NC LEED CS LEED CI
LEED for
Schools
LEED
System
Certication Period: Time from
registration to certication
17 mo. 32 mo. 24 mo. 18 mo. 26 mo. 24 mo.
Period-weighted certication Rates
vs. registrations
42% 42% 21% 36% 9% 34%
2009 Estimated Graduation Rate
(2-year, except for NC)
72% 57% 14% 68% 3% 29%
4
In our modeling, we use graduation rates that vary between 50 and 70 percent depending on the
standard.
of course, but compared to the 80 to 90 percent declines in NC and CS,
respectively, it doesnt look so bad. Including last years surge, the cumulative
certied oor area for EBOM is now nearly equal to that of LEED NC.
2010 LEED Registered Floor Area CHANGES vs. 2009
5
EBOM -59% -36% -56%
NC (incl Retail) -76% -82% -79%
CS -90% -24% -58%
CI -72% 72% -65%
Schools -53% 1396% -44%
LEED System -70% -61% -68%
Cumulative Certications 2000-2010
6
(sq. ft.)
EBOM NC & Retail CS CI Schools
445,921,051 472,296,456 172,603,480 71,891,745 6,010,253
38% 40% 15% 6% 0.50%
Beauty is Still on the Inside Again this year LEED Commercial Interiors (CI),
continues to somewhat defy trends. CI certied oor area grew by 60 percent
compared with last years total, exceeding the 50 percent system-wide average.
Although CI mirrored the large percentage drop in registrations of LEED NC
domestically, it was the only established standard that actually grew in registered
oor area in any market, increasing by more than 70 percent overseas.
2010 LEED System ShareCertied Projects
EBOM NC & Retail CS CI Schools
445,921,051 472,296,456 172,603,480 71,891,745 6,010,253
38% 40% 15% 6% 0.50%
New Construction: (Mostly) In the Toilet New construction certication
(NC + CS) grew 30 percent compared to 2009, signicantly less than average
certication growth this year, though at least it grew.
On the registration front, the question becomes How low can you go? Well,
U.S. Core & Shell registrations were down a stunning 90 percent compared
to last years, while New Construction registrations in the U.S. were down 80
percent. Of modest comfort, the total oor area registered in NC, CS and
Schools was equivalent to about 22 percent of estimated total construction oor
area forecast to be completed this year.
CI certied oor
area grew by 60
percent compared
with last years
total, exceeding the
50 percent system-
wide average.
5
Percentage changes are relative to the previous year for each rating system and not additive.
6
2010 certication totals are estimated from year-to-date gures through September and trend-lined
through the rest of the year.
The total oor area
registered in NC,
CS and Schools
was equivalent to
about 22 percent
of estimated total
construction oor
area forecast to be
completed this year.
2010 LEED System ShareRegistered Projects
EBOM 48.6% 16.2% 37.2%
NC (incl Retail) 33.2% 30.2% 32.2%
CS 3.7% 46.8% 18.8%
CI 8.4% 4.8% 7.1%
Schools 6.1% 2.0% 4.7%
Application Guides Gain Traction On the Application Guide front, LEED for
Schools saw a four-fold surge in certied oor area (off an admittedly small base)
and continues to do better relative to other new construction standards on the
registration front, declining only half as much as NC or CS.
LEED Retail continues to lag, principally due to the delayed public release of
the standard that was approved earlier this year. The imminent release of the
Retail new construction standard and the soon-to-be-introduced volume-build
program should cause oor area in this Application Guide to expand rapidly.
LEED V3 Teaser We have summary data for only 37 Version 3 certied projects
encompassing almost 11 million square feet across all V3 rating systems, but we
couldnt resist a sneak preview of what these projects look like from certication
perspective.
Not surprisingly, EB and CI are off to early starts, simply because they have much
shorter average certication periods than the other standards.
Standard Penetration
EB 59%
NC 8%
CS 3%
CI 30%
Domestic 81%
International
7
19%
Perhaps more interesting is the distribution of certication levels. Version
3 represents a decent jump in stringency, including higher percentage
achievement in several categories, as well as benchmarking to more stringent
standards, such as the most recent ASHRAE 90.1. As you might expect soon
after an increase in stringency, the certication levels are tending toward
the lower awards, Certied and Silver. Also interesting is the relatively high
proportion of Platinumthree times the percentage under the earlier standards.
Granted, this is a very small sample, but it may also indicate the presence of a
group of super-userswho are experienced and early adopters of the
7
Interestingly, most of the international projects certied are in China.
standardare making a strong early showing.
Distribution of Certication Levels
Certied 32%
Silver 35%
Gold 16%
Platinum 16%
Homes is Where the Green is The U.S. residential sector represents more
than half of the economic and environmental impact of the built environment.
Because of the inherent disaggregation of the residential market, the LEED
system has been slower to develop and penetrate, with the LEED for Homes
standard only released in 2007. As of this year, we anticipate that a total of over
9,500 homesboth single-family and multi-familywill be certied by the end
of this year, with another 30,000 homes in the registration queue. (If anything,
the residential construction market was harder hit than the non-residential sector
by the last three years economic upheaval, so the market characteristics upon
which the calculations of this section are based are somewhat atypical.)
Estimated LEED-
certied Homes Total Single-family Multi-family
Projected
Floor Area
2007-2010 9,630 4,064 5,566 16.8 million ft
2
The LEED for Homes pattern is similar to the non-residential pattern: LEED
registrations are off 30 percent compared to the previous 12 months, but the
number of certied homes doubled.
Interestingly, the preponderance of LEED certication has been in the multi-
family sector, which represents almost 60 percent of the homes certied, even
though it represents 20 percent of housing starts over the last 5 years.
% of LEED Homes Certied
Single-Family Multi-Family
2007 31% 69%
2008 60% 40%
2009 63% 37%
2010 29% 71%
Cumulative 42% 58%
H
o
m
e
s
Contrary to the impression that one sometimes gets from the media, LEED-
certied homes are not oversized custom eco-ego trophies for the glitterati.
Indeed, Custom homes is the smallest major project type; more of the LEED-
certied homes fall into the Affordable and Military category by far than in the
Custom category. Production homes, those built en masse by the countrys
largest homebuilding companies, form the bulk of the units certied.
Certied Homes
by Type
Percent of
total units
Custom 11%
Affordable 13%
Production 59%
Military 15%
Other 2%
LEED-certied homes in general are no bigger than average, either. Though
there certainly are LEED-certied residences that are larger than average, LEED
homes are actually about 15 percent smaller than average in the single family
category, but about 7 to10 percent larger in multi-family.
Avg LEED Unit
size (ft
2
)
2009 Housing Characteristics
Report-Census (ft
2
)
Single Family 2,137 2,492
Duplex/Triplex 1,463
Multi-Family 1,090 1,015
Environmental Performance of LEED Homes The certication distribution of
LEED Homes tended to be asymmetrically distributed skewed toward Silver,
in part reecting the newness of the standard, as well as its relative stringency
compared to the average in the market.
Certication Distribution
Certied 12%
Silver 52%
Gold 22%
Platinum 14%
Contrary to the
impression that one
sometimes gets
from the media,
LEED-certied
homes are not
oversized custom
eco-ego trophies for
the glitterati.
Below, we will restrict our detailed environmental focus on LEED Homes energy
performance to date, without any projections.
Energy Energy is the largest section in LEED for Homes, with almost twice the
points of any other section. Scoring energy for LEED for Homes relies on the
Home Energy Rating (HERS) Index, which is a scoring system established by
the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET) in which a home built to the
specications of the HERS Reference Home (based on the 2006 International
Energy Conservation Code) scores a HERS Index of 100, while a net zero energy
home scores a HERS Index of 0. The lower a homes HERS Index, the more
energy-efcient it is in comparison to the HERS Reference Home.
Each one-point decrease in the HERS Index corresponds to a 1 percent
reduction in energy consumption compared to the HERS Reference Home. Thus
a home with a HERS Index of 85 is 15 percent more energy efcient than the
HERS Reference Home and a home with a HERS Index of 80 is 20 percent more
energy efcient.
7

LEED Homes average a HERS score of 62.5, which makes them almost 40
percent more energy efcient than a conventional home built to IECC 2006
code, which just over half the states have adopted. By comparison, Energy Star
Homes have a minimum HERS score requirement of 85, though on average they
tend to score between 70 and 80.
All told, the estimated energy savings from LEED Homes is equivalent to
approximately 100,000 barrels of oil per year.
7
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=bldrs_lenders_raters.nh_HERS
All told, the
estimated energy
savings from LEED
Homes is equivalent
to approximately
100,000 barrels of
oil per year.
International Market First, the good news: Newly certied international LEED
oor area doubled the total certied to date. However, overseas markets for
LEED also were hit on the registration front, approaching 300 million square
feet of new oor area; a respectable number but a decline of about 60 percent
compared with the 750 million square feet registered last year. However, this
relatively smaller decline saw the percentage of international new registrations
hit a new high at 35 percent of all new oor area added to LEED.
Total registered oor area internationally approaches two billion square feet,
comprising over 28 percent of the LEED system total, though domestic projects
continue to dominate the system.
Overall LEED System Share 72% 28% 100%
Unlike the domestic market, international projects continue to emphasize BD&C
standards, which represent over 65 percent of certied and almost 80 percent of
new registered project oor area. This is not surprising given the preponderance
of projects in Asia, the Middle East and Latin America, where new construction is
still expanding.
International projects are about three and a half times larger than the U.S.
average, reecting the large amount of demand for modern buildings. Projects
overseas also tend toward a higher level of certication than their domestic
counterparts with a predisposition for Gold.
International Project Certication Distribution
Certied 19%
Silver 27%
Gold 43%
Platinum 11%
The structure of real estate development, particularly in Asia and the Middle
East, tends to be more speculative than in the U.S., which accounts for the much
higher proportion of LEED registered projects in CS compared with NC. The
widespread use of strata titling makes it very difcult for these buildings, which
tend to be Core and Shell projects to make it to nal certication, as illustrated
by the large spread between CS registered and CS certied oor area.
2010 International Certication Share
8
EBOM NC CS CI Schools
14,676,652 24,029,301 13,932,461 4,740,583 230,000
25% 42% 24% 8% 0%
8
2010 certication totals estimated from year-to-date through September gures and trend-lined
through the rest of the year.
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

M
a
r
k
e
t
Top 10 Countries (Registered + Certied)
Country # Projects Floor area (ft
2
)
Average Project
Floor Area (ft
2
)
India (Includes LEED-India) (1) 866 482,000,000 556,582
United Arab Emirates 708 475,500,000 671,555
Greater China (2) 442 293,000,000 683,141
Canada (Includes LEED Canada) (1) 2794 131,900,000 47,240
South Korea 106 131,000,000 1,236,061
Saudi Arabia 101 123,600,000 1,223,274
Brazil 169 57,400,000 339,714
Mexico 139 51,600,000 370,982
Qatar 68 24,500,000 360,391
Germany 116 23,900,000 205,676
Average International Project Size (all projects) 578,835
United States Average Project Size 164,707
(1) International project environmental calculations in report do not include Canada LEED or India LEED
(2) Includes Hong Kong, Macau & Taiwan
9
2010 registration totals estimated from year-to-date through September gures and trend-lined through
the rest of the year.
2010 International Registration Share
9
EBOM NC CS CI Schools
47,433,233 88,437,271 137,029,914 13,961,609 5,984,404
16% 30% 47% 5% 2%
USGBC continues to rene a project certication structure that can adapt to the
current portfolio of projects, but further improvements are needed before LEED
can penetrate the international market at the same level as the U.S. market.
Challenges to increased penetration in large international markets include:
t benchmarking LEEDs environmental performance standards, particularly
energy
t development of qualied professionals, from designers to builders
t translation of support materials to local language
t infrastructure necessary to support, protect and certify to the LEED brand
LEED addresses impacts to the land in a wide variety of ways, which can be
summarized in three principal categories: location efciency, site protection and
restoration and site performance.
Location Efciency Our chosen indicator of location efciencyreductions in
vehicle miles traveled (VMT)is used to illustrate the aggregate value of LEEDs
siting & alternative transportation requirements.
Research on transit-oriented development communities by G.B. Arrington and
Robert Cevero for the Transportation Research Board
10
indicates that density,
transit service and proximity to mixed uses combine to reduce trips by nearly
45 percent. John Holzclaws research for the Natural Resources Defense Council
shows similar correlations, reducing VMT by about 30 percent. We chose a
conservative value of 35 percent savings for the combination of LEEDs location
efciency and sustainable transportation measures.
The 2010 estimates for VMT reductions more than double those of 2009,
growing to over 1.4 billion fewer VMT avoided. This is a combination of the
50 percent growth in LEED-certied oor area coupled and the commuting
travel reductions under EBOM as new data have become available. Also
driving this growth are a greater percentage of LEED projects in transit-rich
locations and new research showing higher trip reductions from transit-oriented
development. Because of our dramatically reduced oor area forecast, projected
environmental benets are much lower than before.
Our projections indicate that occupants of LEED buildings will drive roughly 8.7
billion VMT by 2020, down signicantly from last years projection of 15 billion,
but up from 4 billion from 2008. By 2030, we estimate people living and working
in LEED buildings will drive 20 billion VMT less per year.
10
Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel, Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 128,
Transportation Research Board, 2008.
11
LEED NC and CS projects only.
12
LEED NC and CS projects only.
LEED Sustainable
Site Trends
(Floor Area-Weighted
Credit Achievement)
VMT reductions
by LEED building
occupants
11
Site Restoration
and Reduced
disturbance
12

Browneld
Redevelopment
Stormwater
Management
Heat
Islands
2008
Non-comparable
methodology with
other reports
35% 20% 24% 65%
2009 49% 44% 19% 52% 59%
2010 51% 44% 19% 44% 56%
S
i
t
e

a
n
d

L
a
n
d

U
s
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s
2010 2020 2030
VMT reductions 1.44 billion 8.66 billion 19.93 billion
% VMT Reduction All Trips 0.07% 0.3% 0.5%
% Commute VMT Reduction 0.34% 1.36% 2.50%
Vehicle equivalents reduced 123,000 741,000 1,706,000
Gallons reduced 58,800,000 354,000,000 813,000,000
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS (TONS)
Hydrocarbons 119 715 1,646
CO 5,396 32,434 74,626
NOx 175 1,049 2,414
Particulates 16 95 219
CO
2
14,000,000 84,000,000 193,000,000
These reductions are the equivalent of over 120,000 vehicles off the road and
almost 30 million gallons of fuel saved to date, eliminating approximately 14
million tons of CO
2
. These gures grow to 1.7 million vehicle-equivalents and
over 800 million gallons of fuel saved annually by 2030, preventing nearly 200
million tons each year of CO
2
emissions, as well as almost 80,000 tons of air
pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, NOx, and hydrocarbons.
Site Protection There was little change in the adoption rates of land protection
measures, so the 40-plus percent decline in site protection measure impacts vs.
the 2009 report is principally due to decreased forecast growth of LEED-certied
projects. As of 2010, we estimate that LEED-certied buildings prevented nearly
1.3 million tons of soil erosion to date and ve million tons of prevented soil loss
by 2020, which grows to almost 8.5 million tons by 2030.
The 2010 estimates
for vehicle miles
traveled (VMT)
reductions more
than double those
of 2009, growing to
over 1.4 billion VMT
avoided.
1,441
Exit: 2010
Fewer miles traveled:
(in millions)
8,662
Exit: 2020
(in millions)
19,929
Exit: 2030
(in millions)
Site Impacts: VMT Reductions
Through 2010,
we estimate that
LEED stormwater
prevention
and treatment
requirements have
avoided or treated
over 1 billion
gallons of toxic
ush.
Forecasts for sensitive land impacts similarly decline, due to the slower growth in
the number of projects and the strong shift to urban development and increased
relative penetration of Existing Buildings. To date we estimate that development
on approximately 40,000 acres of sensitive lands has been avoided, compared
with 24,000 acres calculated in the 2009 report, because of certied project
growth. Forecast impacts show about 81,000 acres in 2020 vs. 70,000 forecast in
2008. By 2030, the total exceeds 122,000 acres.
There was a small shift in the fraction of certied projects seeking the Browneld
restoration certication between 2009 & 2010, but a jump in total certications
indicates that LEED has resulted in an estimated 8,800 acres of Browneld
reclamation vs. 4,800 calculated acres last year. We expect reclaimed Browneld
acres to grow to over 17,000 acres by 2020 and 27,000 acres by 2030.
Stormwater Through 2010, we estimate that LEED stormwater prevention
and treatment requirements have avoided or treated over 1 billion gallons of
toxic ushsignicantly more than we calculated in 2009due to the growth
in certied projects and the land associated with these projects. The volume
prevented and treated grows to exceed 2.2 billion gallons per storm event,
quite a bit less than the 350 million gallons forecast last year, but a healthy
increase compared with 1 billion gallons estimated in the 2008 report. By 2030,
LEED projects reduce or treat over 3.6 billion gallons of stormwater per each
-inch storm event.
Urban Heat Islands About 26,000 acres of land and rooftops have implemented
measures to reduce urban heat islands and we expect almost 130,000 acres of
measures by 2020 and 250,000 by 2030.
Looking Ahead LEED 2009 criteria signicantly boosted the amount of credit
given to projects that are location efcient, meaning in ll lots adjacent to
mass transit. Given this shift in emphasis, we expect that the transportation
and land-related impacts going forward will be greater relative to earlier
versions. And, credits such as the much-maligned bike-rack credit receive
much less weight compared to location efciency (1 point vs. 11 points) within
the Sustainable Sites eld. However, there are only about 50 projects that
have certied to the version 3 criteria, so it is too soon to tell whether certied
projects will become more location efcient as a result.
Other Sustainable Site Impacts
2010 2020 2030
Topsoil Preserved from
Erosion Control Requirements
1,721,000
(Tons)
6,035,000
(Tons)
11,672,000
(Tons)
Sensitive Land Avoided &
Open Space increased from
Site Selection Requirements
40,000
(Acres)
81,000 (Acres)
122,000
(Acres)
Browneld Acres
Redeveloped
8,800 (Acres) 17,600 (Acres) 27,200 (Acres)
Acres of Heat Islands
Mitigated
26,000
(Acres)
80,800 (Acres)
161,000
(Acres)
Gallons Reduced per rst 3/4"
Stormwater 'Toxic Flush'
995,200,000
(gallons)
2,232,000,000
(gallons)
3,648,000,000
(gallons)
LEED Version 3 increased the prerequisite savings to 20 percent above minimum
standards and to reward 30-40 percent savings. We expect to have data next
year on the overall savings in projects certied under LEED V3.
The number of projects using greywater treatment systems again dropped
slightly, in large part because water chemistry is very complicated and these
systems require a great deal of maintenance and capital cost to install. It remains
to be seen whether, as on-site wastewater treatment experience grows and
technology improvesnot to mention the expected $1 trillion water and sewer
TotaI Water 5avings
(in iIIions of GaIIons)
{ xx{

W
a
t
e
r

E
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

I
m
p
a
c
t
s
infrastructure bill our local jurisdictions are facing in the next decadethere will
be increased emphasis on buildings treating their own sewage on-site.
Aggregate Water Savings: Cumulative savings in 2010 from plumbing,
landscaping, and cooling towers usages combined is over 33 billion gallons,
comprising 1 percent of annual non-residential water use. By 2020, with LEED
oor area exceeding 19 billion square feet, this gure is expected to approach
237 billion gallons of water, or 6.7 percent of annual non-residential water,
an increase of over 700 percent. This number will more than double by 2030,
reaching 565 billion gallons of saved water, which represents a decent 14
percent savings of annual non-residential water use.
Wastewater Reductions Based on the fraction of LEED projects pursuing water
efciency combined with innovative wastewater treatment, we calculated that
9.6 billion gallons of wastewater have been avoided to date, a 0.2 percent
reduction in the annual wastewater generated.
ETI expects savings of over 52 billion gallons of wastewater generation avoided
by 2020, which grows to more than 101 billion gallons by 2030. These gures
represent 1.3 percent and over 2.5 percent reduction in annual wastewater
generation, respectively.
Conservative These estimates are conservative because they dont include all
of the reduced wastewater generated due to the savings from cooling towers
and plumbing xtures that are less than the 50 percent threshold of the credit.
Indeed the plumbing xture savings are probably a more accurate estimate
13
Numbers may not add exactly due to rounding.
14
Please see the Methodology section for an explanation of the updated gures.
Water Efciency and Treatment Impacts
Units Impact to Date Projected Impact
2020
Projected Impact
2030
Total Water Savings
13

Million
Gallons
33,400 236,700 565,400
Plumbing Water Savings
Million
Gallons
5,672 47,135 115,904
Landscape Water Savings
Million
Gallons
17,698 105,322 245,315
Cooling Tower Water Savings
Million
Gallons
9,986 84,206 204,149
Annual Non-Residential
Water Use
% 1.0 6.7 14.3
Water Waste Reduction
Total
Million
Gallons
9,628 52,161 101,297
Corrected 2009 Annual
Waste Water Reduction
14
Million
Gallons
3,984 52,914 99,487
Original 2009 Annual Waste
Water Reduction
Million
Gallons
18,100 852,000 1,890,000
of the true wastewater reductions, but we also have the potential for double-
counting projects that save more water than LEED gives credit for.
Energy performance in LEED buildings certied under the BD&C standards
continues to be criticized and so, once again, we looked at this question: Do
new LEED buildings save energy compared to standard buildings or not? And,
once again, the answer is: Absolutely. However, not all LEED buildings perform
as designed, just like all cars do not get their EPA driving test certied fuel
economy (your mileage may vary!).
How do we support our bold assertions of LEED energy performance? First off,
most critics are behind the times when they make blanket statements about
LEED. LEED is not just about new building design any more. As readers of this
report know, LEED EBOM this year comprised nearly half of all registered and
certied projects and requires an Energy Star score, which is based on actual
billing data. The average Energy Star score of certied EBOM projects is 85 and,
indeed, over 20 percent of EBOM certied projects have an Energy Star score of
93 or above.
15
Second, on the new building front, the National Research Council of Canada,
Institute for Research in Construction (IRC) conrms that, on average, LEED
buildings use from 18 to 39 percent less energy than comparable buildings.
16

However, IRC also found that nearly one-third of these newly built buildings
consume more energy than their counterparts. This is of course a serious cause
for concern, and the subject of the extensive research underway through the
Building Performance Partnership, launched by USGBC in 2009.
Energy Savings Trends in LEED As shown in the Table below
17
, the average
predicted energy savings of new buildings falls solidly in the middle of the
range expected by the Canadian study. We now have data on nearly 600 EB and
EBOM certied buildings, whereas in 2009 we had information on barely 100
and in 2008 none at all.
2010 Green Building
Market & Impact
Report
Average %
Savings in
LEED Projects
% Savings in
2009 Report
% Savings in
2008 Report
All Projects Low High Low High
LEED NC (2.0, 2.1 & 2.2) 24% 16-31% 25-31%
CS 2.0 (whole building) 17% 15-20% 25-31%
EB/EBOM
18

28%/35%
(Energy Star 85)
28-37% 37%
CI 21.1 (kBtu/ft2) 14.1 (kBtu/ft2) N.A.
E
n
e
r
g
y

I
m
p
a
c
t
s
15
At the bottom end of the spectrum, the minimum energy prerequisite for EBOM certied projects
ranges from an Energy Star score of 60 (EB 2004) to 69 (EB 2009).
16
Do LEED-certied buildings save energy? Yes, but Guy R. Newsham, Sandra Mancini, Benjamin J.
Birt, National Research Council Canada Institute for Research in Construction, August 2009.
17
More details can be found in the Methodology section.
18
EB savings gures are only used in 2010; EBOM going forward. EB projects represent about 1/3 of the
certied projects to date. The weighted average savings is 33 percent or Energy Star 83.
As reported last year, in 2007, USGBC responded to alarming trends of projects
not pursuing energy credits with a minimum requirement to achieve a minimum
of 2 points in order to certify. Projects registered prior to June 27, 2007 were
grandfathered under the earlier standard that did not require energy savings
beyond the ASHRAE 90.1 baseline. But, as shown below, the adoption of this
policy proved to be quite effective in pushing projects to save more energy.
Percent of NC 2.2
projects achieving
EA Credit 1.2 (14% Savings
from ASHRAE 90.1 2004)
2007 78%
2008 80%
2009 90%
2010 95%
Most of the change in energy savings (0.08 Quads
*
in 2010 vs. 0.03/0.04 Quads
Low/High in 2009) is driven by the rapid growth in LEED-certied oor area.
Also, this year we have better information on all standards, which allows us to
use a single forecast case with condence. From last years report there are
minor changes in the expected savings from the various standards, but LEED CI
stands out, as there is a marked increase in energy savings based on the more
comprehensive information we have this year.
Given the contraction in forecast LEED-certied oor area over the next 20
years, energy savings are signicantly below last years estimates. By 2020,
energy savings are expected to reach 0.71 Quads and approximately 1.8
Quads by 2030, or 3.4 percent and 7.8 percent, respectively, of national annual
commercial building energy use. Although much lower than last years estimate,
the energy saving equivalent amount of coal would be enough to ll every major
football or soccer stadium in each of the 50 states, plus Washington DC, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Given the
contraction in
forecast LEED-
certied oor
area over the
next 20 years,
energy savings
are signicantly
below last years
estimates.
*Quad = 1 quadrillion Btu or about 8 billion gallons of gasoline.
2010 2020 2030
TOTAL LEED ENERGY SAVINGS (Quads) 0.08 0.83 2.08
Net Commercial Building Consumption 19.28 20.26 20.64
Percent of 2010 Baseline 100% 105% 107%
Projected U.S. Commercial Building
Consumption - Q
19.36 21.09 22.72
% Savings of Total Commercial Energy Use 0.41% 3.94% 9.17%
If LEED is to make
any signicant
contribution to
absolute reductions
in non-residential
energy use, a
concerted effort
will be needed to
rapidly grow the
penetration of LEED
EBOM.
{x
{

Energy 5avings
(in MiIIions of 5bort Tons of CoaI)
The level of savings based on this years lower LEED penetration assumptions
do not overcome increased energy use driven by oor area growth. As a
result, there is still an absolute increase in non-residential energy use by 2030
compared with 2010.
Given that growth in new construction is unlikely to resume to any signicant
degree in the near future, if LEED is to make any signicant contribution to
absolute reductions in non-residential energy use, a concerted effort will be
needed to rapidly grow the penetration of LEED EBOM.
In order to achieve zero net growth in non-residential energy use by 2020, LEED
EBOM would need to at least double our forecast oor area to 15 billion square
feet. This would entail adding an average of 1.4 billion new square feet per year
in certied EBOM projects. Very aggressive to be sure, but denitely doable
under the right circumstances.
Renewable Energy Impact: Because renewable energy stands as a crucial
objective for delivering still more signicant environmental impact, we felt it was
important to measure the added energy from renewable sources contributed by
green buildings so far. The percentage of renewably derived energy associated
with green buildings has grown considerably, both in the form of on-site
adoption of renewable energy technologies as well as (in the case of LEED EB, in
particular) using clean sources of energy to power buildings through renewable
energy certicates, or RECs, and direct purchases of renewable energy.
The percentage
of renewably
derived energy
associated with
green buildings has
grown considerably,
both in the form of
on-site adoption of
renewable energy
technologies as
well as using
clean sources of
energy to power
buildings through
renewable energy
certicates and
direct purchases of
renewable energy.
3,464,451
17,296,407
39,012,499
2010 2020 2030
Renewable Energy Summary
CO
2
reductions (in tons)
Summary Energy Impacts:
2010 2020 2030
On-Site Generation (Billion kWh) 0.20 0.81 1.38
Grid Renewable Electricity Purchased
(Billion kWh)
5.57 27.97 63.52
% Non-residential Electricity that's
renewable
0.4% 1.6% 3.1%
Household Equivalents powered by
renewables
541,000 2,701,000 6,091,000
Annual CO
2
reductions (tons) 3,464,451 17,296,407 39,012,499
From our ndings, we concluded that LEED buildings have purchased or
generated 5.8 BkWh total renewable electricity to date, representing 0.4 percent
of annual nationwide non-residential electricity.
Commensurate with our lower expectations for continued green building
growth, but higher penetration of renewable energy purchases, we forecast
that green building electricity from renewable sources will approach 28 billion
kilowatt-hours by 2020, exceeding 63 billion kWh by 2030. These numbers
represent 1.6 percent and 3.1 percent, respectively, of forecasted annual
nationwide non-residential electricity, equivalent to the energy use of more than
6 million homes.
CO
2
Emissions Reductions from Energy Efciency & Renewables We
estimate that the annual CO
2
savings from LEED buildings is approximately 7.3
million tons from energy efciency and renewable energy. This gure grows to
nearly 63 million tons per year by 2020 and over 168 million tons annually by
2030.
Total CO
2
Reductions
Efciency + Renewables
7,300,000 62,600,000 168,200,000
Financial Savings from Commissioning and Monitoring & Verication (M&V)
In 2009, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) updated its 2004
study on the Cost Effectiveness of Commercial-Building Commissioning. In
this update, no direct calculation of the economic value of non-energy benets
for Commissioning was included, reecting the difculty of evaluating the
multi-faceted aspects of the commissioning process and lack of a baseline of
comparison.
The LBNL report did indicate that non-energy benets were likely to offset all
or most of the upfront costs of Commissioning. LBNL found, on average, that
projects for new and existing buildings resulted in median energy savings of 13
percent and 16 percent, respectively, and had good paybacks: 4.2 years for new
construction and 1.1 years for existing buildings.
LEED buildings
have purchased or
generated 6.8 BkWh
total renewable
electricity to date,
representing
0.4 percent of
annual nationwide
non-residential
electricity.
Do LEED Buildings Save Energy? Yes, but Since the mostly discredited
critiques that LEED buildings do not save energy continue to linger like
unwashed sweat socks, we will continue to address this question head-on
because our work indicates that energy savings are the largest source of
environmental benet in LEED.
Most important, LEED is about more than just operational energy. LEEDs
holistic approach to building sustainability has expanded the denition of
building energy consumption beyond the buildings footprint to include the
buildings location, the upstream and downstream energy consumption of water
supply and treatment and the embodied energy of materials. LEED buildings
are more location-efcient than average U.S. buildings, more water efcient and
use a higher percentage of lower-energy materials.
The National Research Councils Institute for Research in Construction (IRC) of
Canada, conducted an exhaustive statistical study in 2009 to try and answer
the question: Are LEED buildings more operationally efcient than regular
buildings?
IRC used the raw data from the same data sets as the New Buildings Institute
study,
19
but applied a completely different and very rigorous statistical
methodology that strictly compared like buildings in LEED with like buildings
in CBECS.
20
The IRCs answer was essentially the same as the NBI: On average,
LEED buildings are more energy efcient than comparable non-LEED buildings,
but some arent.
Key IRC Findings
Average LEED
Energy Savings
Percent of LEED buildings that
use more than conventional
18% to 39% 28% to 35%
IRC took buildings from the LEED database and compared them with buildings
of similar occupancy, size (within 10 percent) and geographical location. Where
the variables did not match up exactlysuch as differences in the denition of
climate zones or occupanciesthe IRC team created conservative (stricter)
and liberal (broader) comparison proxies and tested whether there was a
statistically signicant change comparing the LEED building to the range of
comparative buildings.
The IRC study compared like with like, thus avoiding the messiness of having
to bang the two datasets into conformance with one another to allow statistical
comparability. One very interesting result was that the IRC analysis showed
that an average LEED building with zero energy points still had an energy use
intensity (EUI) about 14 percent below the CBECS mean, which reinforces a
Our work indicates
that energy
savings are the
largest source of
environmental
benet in LEED.
19
Energy bill data from 100 medium energy occupancies LEED projects and the raw 2003 CBECS data
set. The 21 high energy occupancies were felt to have too few data points to be statistically signicant.
20
Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) of the Department of Energys (DOE)
Energy Information Administration (EIA).
point we made in last years Green Building Market & Impact Report that even
minimum conformance with ASHRAE 90.1 represents a signicant step up in
many parts of the country.
Somewhat counter-intuitive, but not entirely confounding, was the nding that
there was no correlation with the level of certication of a LEED project and its
energy efciency. One of the keys to LEEDs success is its exibility in allowing
projects to pick the best mix of credits for their situation. To LEEDs energy
critics, this is a fatal aw, but we are absolutely certain that without its hallmark
exibility LEED would be much less widely utilized and in a much weaker
position to push for change.
Also interesting, and to our mind a much more important nding, is the weak
correlation between energy points and energy performance. Clearly, the
improving the accuracy of modeling and real life performance will be key for
improving condence in the use of these tools to design better buildings. As far
as the overall environmental performance of LEED going forward, the shift to
EBOM as the core standard of LEED makes this accuracy less important in the
US. But because of the continued growth in new construction overseas, this will
be an important question to tackle.
IRC also reviewed several post-occupancy studies of relatively small cohorts of
LEED-certied buildings that came to similar conclusions: on average, buildings
performed fairly closely to predictions, but that on an individual-building basis
there was a tremendous amount of variability, with several projects consuming
quite a bit more than expected.
Summary of the New Buildings Institute Study Although rendered moot by
the ndings of the Canadian research, the NBI study continues to receive the
bulk of the attention and undue criticism.
About 550 projects were certied by LEED by the end of 2006 and all of these
projects were surveyed asked to supply their energy consumption information.
About 120 projects responded with all of the necessary information. Another
128 projects responded, but with insufcient data for comparison. A total
response rate of approximately 45 percent is pretty phenomenal, given the
sensitive nature of the information being sought. However, the NBI study
discovered some problems in the cohort of certied projects, the most prevalent
of which was that the majority of projects were not adequately metered to
respond to the survey. As a result of this nding, all LEED buildings certied to
Version 3.0 are required to report their energy consumption.
LEED Building Consumption Compared to Average One of the most
persistent criticisms of the NBI study involves the comparison of the median
value of the NBI dataset with the mean value of the CBECS dataset. Everyone
agrees that this is not a great match statistically, the NBI study authors included.
However, the NBI authors should not be criticized for doing the right thing for
their dataset: for a small, highly variable dataset, the median is a better metric
to use because it uctuates much less as the data expands. Of course, the larger
the dataset, the more robust the mean value becomes and the more appropriate
it is to use that measure of central tendency.
There is no doubt that CBECS uses the mean value for all of their datasets, but
One of the keys
to LEEDs success
is its exibility in
allowing projects to
pick the best mix
of credits for their
situation.
the question is never asked whether in the 2003 report they should have used it
for the data set of energy use of buildings built after 2000. As shown in the table
below, for small datasets the CBECS mean is wildly variablethe 1990-1992
EUI mean increases by over 65 percent between the 1992 and 1995 CBECS
surveys. The exact same thing may actually happen with the EUI of the 2000-
2003 buildings when the 2007 CBECS is released. We just dont know. What we
do know is the mean value of the EUI for 1990s buildings becomes less variable
over time with a larger data set, but still varies signicantly (EUI of 89 in 2003 vs.
69 in 1992) from the initial survey values.
21

90s Buildings -
Cohorts
EUI-Site
Energy
EUI-Primary
Energy
Source
1992 CBECS
90-92
69 157
Table 3.2-Total Energy
Consumption by Major Fuel,
1992
1995 CBECS
90-92
22
115 242
1995 CBECS-Table 1. Total
Consumption Tables
90-95 105 225
Consumption Tables
1999 CBECS-90s 98 220
Table C1: Total Energy
Consumption by Major Fuel
2003 CBECS-90s 89 201
2003 CBECS Table C1
(Non-Mall Buildings) p. 249
The other issue involves the mix of buildings in the underlying dataset,
particularly the impact of high- and low-energy energy buildings on the overall
EUI. The LEED dataset has about 17 percent of its buildings in the high-energy
category, compared with 11 percent in the CBECS survey. In addition, CBECS
includes such low-energy structures such as vacant buildings and warehouses,
comprising 8 percent of the oor area, whereas LEED has none of these.
In conclusion, its important to understand what the NBI study is and isnt.
What it is:
t The rst and largest post-occupancy study of LEED buildings to date.
t An initial validation that average energy saving estimates of early LEED-
certied buildings range from 25 to 30 percent.
t Based on projects that certied to LEED NC 2.0 and 2.1 four or more
years ago.
t An important warning that a large minority LEED buildings to not perform
as expected.
What the NBI study is not:
The LEED dataset
has about 17
percent of its
buildings in the
high-energy
category, compared
with 11 percent in
the CBECS survey.
CBECS includes
such low-energy
structures such as
vacant buildings
and warehouses,
whereas LEED has
none of these.
21
Its obvious for the coherence of the CBECS report overall that a common statistical measurement
should be used, which is why the mean is used consistently throughout. Most of the datasets support
the use of that measure.
22
Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) Energy Information Administration (EIA).
t Representative of the LEED system as a whole: only 2 percent of all
LEED-certied New Construction projects were evaluated.
t Inclusive of LEED EBOM projects that rely on measured energy.
t The last USGBC-sponsored research on this topic.
t A cause for complacency that all is well on the LEED energy front.
LEED continues to rapidly tighten its energy requirements and the Building
Performance Initiative was launched a year ago to gure out how and why some
buildings performance does not at all conform with modeling predictions and in
a large minority of cases is worse than existing buildings.
Building & Materials Reuse Perhaps people are staying put in existing buildings
and not doing any rehab, but the percentage of certied projects reusing
buildings decreased to 8-11 percent for LEED-certied projects compared with
last years 12-15 percent of LEED NC and LEED CS projects reporting signicant
reuse of buildings and interior components.
For Commercial Interiors on the other hand, signicantly more oor area was
kept as-is, which made up for most of the decline in the new building area.
In square footage terms this exceeds 107 million square feet to date, a slightly
larger percentage increase compared with the increase in certied oor area.
Our calculations show that rehabilitated oor area will exceed 400 million square
feet by 2020 and approach 800 million square feet by 2030.
Embodied Energy Impacts We estimate that building and materials reuse
in LEED buildings have saved cumulatively almost 73 million barrels of oil
equivalent in embodied energy, which will grow to over 200 million barrels
equivalent by 2030, which is approximately equivalent to the amount of oil
currently imported from Russia.
Construction & Demolition Waste This years report benets from updated
waste diversion gures from the US EPA. Aggregate data show that over 60
percent of the C&D waste generated by LEED NC projects is diverted. CS
and CI projects are estimated to have a weighted waste diversion rate also
exceeding 60 percent. We also have information on EB solid waste management
and occupant waste diversion, which are included this year. Between cumulative
Certied and Built To projects, we estimate that, so far, LEED buildings have
recycled or reused elsewhere a total of nearly 53 million tons of construction and
consumer waste. These diversion gures are expected to expand to nearly 216
million tons in 2020 and 433 million tons in 2030.
Green Materials Impacts The varied use of materials and the lack of good data
make an evaluation of materials other environmental impacts difcult. For this
reason, LEED chose to evaluate several materials categories on a dollar basis, as
will we.
Based on average materials costs, local and recycled-content building materials
represented approximately $15 billion in cumulative spending through 2010. By
2030, cumulative spending in this area is expected to approach $120 billion. We
note again this year that we believe these gures are conservative because they
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

I
m
p
a
c
t
s
do not include the value of materials that are evaluated based on their indoor
environmental quality characteristics, such as paints and adhesives.
Certied Wood There was a fairly substantial growth in the number of LEED
projects specifying Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) wood compared with last
years penetration of this measure.
Percent Projects Specifying FSC Wood
23
NC CS CI
2010 41% 47% 27%
2009 38% 18% 19%
Based on average non-residential wood use estimates and the penetration
of the certied wood credit in LEED, our evaluation shows that to date, over
580 million board-feet equivalent of certied wood has been installed in LEED
projects. If current penetration rates continue, this utilization will exceed 5.3
billion board feet by 2030.
Anyone who fails to LEED-certify their green building, preferring to spend their
23
For 50 percent of the value of wood products.
To date, over 580
million board-
feet equivalent of
certied wood has
been installed in
LEED projects.
2020
580 2,492 5,343
2020
LEED Use of Certied Wood
(in Millions of Board Feet)
2010 2020 2030
money on real green features, is foregoing thousands of dollars of market
value for every dollar they save.
In the intervening year since our last look at the data, new reports on the market
impact of LEED certication have emerged that clearly show the aws of the
90/10 Syndrome where people spend 90 percent of their time quantifying 10
percent of the benets.
While operational savings are real and important, they are 10 percent or less of
the economic value of LEED. The nancial benets in LEED are largely achieved
through the enhancement of employee productivity and higher income from
the market value of the LEED brand that gives condence that the building is
a better building. A growing number of studies are showing productivity gains
far in excess of what we have been conservatively using in previous reports. In
addition, there is growing data on the market value of LEED.
Productivity Salaries represent approximately 90 percent of the money ow
through a building, the rest being amortized construction costs, operations
& maintenance, including utilities. For our past estimates of green building
benets from LEED, we assumed a conservative range of 1 to 2 percent
f]{
f{]

Indoor Air OuaIity
Impacts of LEED
(in miIIions of doIIars)
f]x
I
n
d
o
o
r

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
24
EPA Pamphlet: How Does Indoor Air Quality Impact Student Health and Performance? April 2010
25
DCS is partly owned by Johnson Diversey, a sponsor of this report.
26
Fuerst, F.; McAllister, P.M. (2008). Does it Pay to Be Green? Connecting Economic and Environmental
Performance in Commercial Real Estate Markets
productivity increase in built-to and LEED-certied projects.
We believe that our past productivity estimates understate the true benets of
green. This year we up our LEED building productivity gain estimate to 4.88
percent, which is the reported value found by research by the University of San
Diego (USD) with support from CB Richard Ellis on over 500 tenants in 124
buildings and a follow-up longitudinal study of 75 LEED EB projects indicate a
productivity gain of nearly 5 percent. These buildings also reported an average
of nearly three fewer sick days taken for an additional productivity gain of 1.2
percent. As a conservatism we do not include the reduced sick days benet in
our value of productivity assessment.
While not all buildings studied by USD reported these benets, a range of
studies reviewed by the USD researchers have uncovered productivity increases
from green building measures ranging from 1 percent in manufacturing to over
25 percent in an Australian law ofce.
Green Cleaning and Productivity Maintenance costs are also a large part
of the overall Net Operating Income (NOI) of a building, which often is used
to evaluate the asset value of a property. The cost of cleaning a building can
approach that of energy in many parts of the country, so boosting effectiveness
and productivity in this area is important to the bottom line.
As experience with green cleaning grows, the evidence shows that costs come
down and that productivity, whether its lower absenteeism or lower infection
rates in schools as reported by the US EPA, increases
24
. And the 2008 book
Green Cleaning for Dummies notes that effective green cleaning practices can
reduce cleaning costs by 10 to 20 percent.
Daylight cleaning case studies by Daylight Cleaning Systems
25
show that energy
costs can decline by almost 8 percent, while tenants have expressed greater
satisfaction in cleaning services and janitorial employees have lower turnover. In
southern California, Fluor Corporation lowered cleaning costs by more than 20
cents per square footover 12 percentusing a daytime cleaning strategy and
cleaning-related complaints decreased.
Some concerns raised about daylight cleaning include the practice of waving
off maintenance staff if an occupant does not wish the room to be cleaned,
which can present potential health problems if the room is not cleaned at all. In
addition, for a variety of reasons, not all janitorial staff prefer daytime cleaning.
Market Value In 2008, Furst & McAllister
26
conducted an analysis of over 3,000
US commercial properties of which 500 were either LEED-certied or Energy
Star. After controlling for potentially confounding factors such as location,
building age, size and vacancy rate, the analysis found that LEED buildings were
renting for over 9 percent more than their conventional building counterparts
and selling for an impressive 31 percent more. A follow-on study in 2009 by the
same authors using an expanded data set of 15,000 benchmark buildings, 200
LEED buildings and over 800 Energy Star buildings found slightly lower rental
premiums of 5 percent and an average sale price premium of 26 percent for
As experience with
green cleaning
grows, the evidence
shows that costs
come down and
that productivity,
whether its lower
absenteeism or
lower infection
rates in schools,
increases.
27
Miller & Pogue, 2009
LEED building.
These ndings are corroborated by additional work done by CB Richard Ellis
(CBRE) on LEED and BREEAM certied projects internationally, which found
rental premiums between 2 and 6 percent. The same study found that green
building cost premiums essentially offset the rental premiums, but goes on to
note that the energy savings implemented through the greening program were
essentially free.
Aggregate Economic Value from LEED We quantify the impact of the indoor
environmental quality (IEQ) measures rewarded by LEED in terms of the
economic value of increased productivity. Most of the IEQ measures in LEED do
impact features that employees have said they value, such as daylight and views,
good indoor air quality and thermal comfort. LEED buildings have been found
to have better IEQ performance than their conventional counterparts.
Percentage of Respondents Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing
27
47% Healthier indoor environment
55% Convenient access to transit
61% Easier to attract/retain employees
74% Good image for clients & public
70% Good image for owners & shareholders
Taking an average of the number of employees affected by various features
of green buildings, we ascertained that an average of at least 1.5 million
employees are currently enjoying improved indoor environments in LEED
buildings at present. Even at the lower forecast growth rate of green, green
building workforce is expected to approach 5 million by 2020, becoming
almost 18 million strong by 2030. Even though these future head-counts are way
below last years value, the increase in estimated productivity more than makes
up for it.
More than ever, our results reinforce the notion that the bottom line of green
is black: an estimated $6.4 billion has already been saved through added
productivity of the green building workforce. Given continued growth in green
buildings, we expect this number to grow signicantly in the future: reaching
between $22 billion by 2020, and totaling between $75 billion by 2030.
An estimated $6.4
billion has already
been saved through
added productivity
of the green
building workforce.
The Big Picture 2010 Unfortunately, our crumbling, archaic economic system is
causing retrenchment at the exact time we need to be redoubling our efforts.
This year is on pace to be the warmest year since records have been kept. Based
on business as usual trends, the current worst-case climate scenarios make
earlier projections seem quaint by comparison.
Last year, based on trends from the previous three years, cautious optimism that
business-as-usual LEED might make a real difference was warranted. Optimism
was cautious because, while LEED was penetrating rapidly, there was some
unevenness in building performance, so our projections required a fairly broad
span to accommodate a reasonable condence interval.
So while we can say that over the last year our knowledge and certainty in the
environmental performance of LEED buildings has grown, our forecasts of how
rapidly this performance will further penetrate have shrunk considerably, to
the point where at best there might be a zeroing-out of growth at 2008 levels
of non-residential CO
2
emissions, but there is quite unlikely to be any overall
decrease even by 2030, unless it is forced by some draconian economic or
energy crisis.
CO
2
concentrations in excess of 450 parts per million (ppm)current CO
2

levels are at 380 ppm and rising 2-3 ppm per yearare feared to give rise to
unmanageable global warming: A scenario that dees mitigation or adaptation.
The general scientic consensus is that in order to maintain global carbon
dioxide levels at less than 450 ppm, by 2050 carbon dioxide emissions would
need to be reduced by 80 percent below those of the year 2000. To put the
magnitude of this challenge in perspective, in spite of U.S. projected oor space
increases of 150 percent, total building sector emissions will need to be only 20
percent of their current levels.
The Little Picture The good news is that LEED buildings continue to be a bit
ahead in terms of their own performance relative to this goal. Average LEED
non-residential buildings are 25 percent more efcient than average, which
means they are about 4 years ahead of the trend.
The bad news is that LEED is improving at only a fraction of the 1.6 percent
annual pace and will soon be overtaken. And when one considers that its not
just LEED buildings that have to improve this rapidly, but the entire building
sector must hit this reduction target, any complacency must evaporate.
The sad fact is that LEED buildings better performance will make little to no
dent in reducing of building sector CO
2
emissions without greater penetration.
And without greater savings per building, we have no hope of hitting the 80
percent reduction.
We need more savings, and faster, in order to reduce total emissions at the
necessary scale, scope and speed.
And for all the LEED critics braying about its inadequacy at saving energy and
the need to move to Living Building Challenge or some other real green
building certication scheme, one cant help but notice that only three Living
Buildings have been certied in the four years since the system launched and
those in October 2010.
The sad fact is that
LEED buildings
better performance
will make little to no
dent in reducing of
building sector CO
2

emissions without
greater penetration.
T
h
e

B
i
g

P
i
c
t
u
r
e
This is not at all to knock LBC and deeper green systems. Pushing the envelope
is crucial and needed: Indeed, LEED is developing a beyond Platinum tier.
Rather, we bring this up to point out that you can lead a horse to water, but you
cant make it drink. There are market, technical and operational challenges in
progressing beyond the bar LEED has set without trespassing on the paradox of
Gandhis heretic: Leaders are tolerated so long as they are not too far ahead of
the pack.
In practice, LEED buildings are getting more energy-efcient, but they are not
by any means bumping up against the energy efciency credit limits within the
system. So, LEEDs lack of energy requirements is not the problem. There are
structural problems in our economic and political systems that prevent adoption
of the necessary technological and operational changes to bring on more
building efciency more quickly.
USGBC improvements to the LEED system have led to increased energy
efciency, but the current market downturn makes longer-term predictions
highly uncertain. While LEED EB energy-saving performance is on track at 35
percent average savings, its penetration is severely lagging what we believe is
necessary to hit any kind of meaningful reduction in carbon pollution. Updated
BD&C standard certication gures show that average energy efciency has
improved by about 7 percent since 2007, but it is still less than 30 percent more
efcient than the ASHRAE 90.1 requirements. New construction penetration is
bumping up against the 25 percent market share upper limit
The efciency performance of certied LEED EB projects and their growing
penetration is encouraging, but even our most optimistic forecast would need
to double and be coupled with signicant improvements in minimum efciency
standardsfor example national adoption of ASHRAE 189, which itself would
need to improve about 5 percent during each three-year revision cyclein order
to have even a remote chance of hitting the building wedge even in the United
States.
Market Transformation Market mechanisms in the form of technology
incentives and energy prices that reect true environmental and social costs will
also be needed to accomplish these goals.
t Regulators must enable utilities to signicantly ramp up their energy
efciency incentive programs.
t Golden carrots or X-Prizes for more efcient new-generation
appliances and equipment should be continuously available
t Grid connection fees could be established that reward efcient grid-
smart buildings with low to no fees, while code-minimum buildings
should get socked with hefty fees.
t Banks and insurance companies must follow leaders such as Firemans
Fund and expand their current offerings for green buildings to reect the
lower risks of green buildings, as well as help minimize total extra initial
costs of green.
t Non-economic incentives, such as accelerated permit approval and
project density bonuses for advanced levels of efciency will also help
The efciency
performance of
LEED EB projects
and their growing
penetration is
encouraging, but
even our most
optimistic forecast
would need to
double in order to
have even a remote
chance of hitting
the building wedge
in the U.S.
improve green uptake.
t In addition, policymakers must price carbon. We know with 100%
certainty that zero is the only price that is precisely wrong. No matter
what price is put on carbon, approximately right will be better than what
we have now.
Unfortunately, under our current economic construct, we are required to cost-
justify our continued existence as a species and our nancial tools render all
costs and benets insignicant within twenty years, so how can we possibly
make rational decisions on reducing carbon emissions where the effective
time scale is centuries or even a millennia?
Floor Area Calculations The calculation of environmental impacts in this report
has its foundation in a spreadsheet model that quanties and projects the total
oor space of certied and registered LEED NC, LEED CS, LEED CI, LEED EB/
EBOM and LEED for Schools and LEED for Retail Application Guide projects.
Based on data available from the USGBC and the methodology described
below, we calculated oor area streams of LEED-certied and built-to LEED
projects into the future. Projects that register, but do not certify are classied as
built-to LEED (see below).
2000-2010: We used actual historical gures from the US Green Building Council
though 2009. For 2010, we used actual project gures through the end of
September 2010 and assumed that 4th quarter results would mirror monthly
average registrations and certications from the rst three quarters.
2020 and 2030 Projections: Based on reported construction starts and LEED
project registration data, we can estimate a penetration of LEED projects in
the market. This penetration data served as the starting point for making a best
guess on the future trajectory of LEED. We modeled our post-2010 projections
of LEED registrations based on a Pearl-Reed growth curve, which is an S-shaped
function that trends toward an upward limit. Pearl-Reed curves often are used to
simulate and predict technology penetration trends.
We assume that the maximum penetration of LEED registered projects is 25
percent of the addressable market for any given standard. This forms the
upward limit of the Pearl-Reed S-curve. Each standard, based on historical
performance and market size has a different curve. Using historical data, we then
made a best t to a Pearl-Reed curve and used this curve to project registrations
forward.
In our 2009 analysis, based on the previous three years experience, it appeared
that the addressable market was bigger than originally thought, which led
us to expand the size of this marketthe biggest impact here was in the
Existing Building market. It also appeared, based on the previous three years
registered oor area, that LEED projects were penetrating the market quickly.
The combination led us to use fairly short, steep S-curves
28
that attened at fairly
high annual oor area numbers.
This years results threw cold water on our own irrational exuberance and we
re-evaluated the addressable market for each standard and the rate at which
it would penetrate. In all cases, the addressable market was smaller and the
penetration curve atter
29
than last years analysis, which is why there is a lot less
projected oor area in LEED in this years analysis than last years.
Once we determine expected project registrations through the application of
the Pearl-Reed formula to the addressable market, we then graduate the
registered projects to either certied or built-to projects. On average, based
on historical certication rates to date, about 50 percent of CS, CI & EBOM
projects that register ultimately certify, though NC projects seem to only certify
about 40 percent of registered projects, which is down from 70 percent and 60
percent, respectively last year.
28
Based on data through last year, the best-tting curve was a 12-year curve.
29
We re-set most of the S-curves to 20-year curves which are much atter than the 12-year curves we
used earlier. The atter rate of uptake reects both the expected lingering effects of the economic crisis
and the expected continuing ramp-up of green requirements for LEED certication.
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
:

M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
Built to LEED and other Free-driver effects In evaluating the impacts of
LEED we also created a category we call built to LEED. Generally, these are
projects that register, but dont certifyapproximately 50 percent of registered
projects to date according to our research. While we do not expect these
buildings to achieve the same level of green performance of LEED-certied
buildings, the performance is not zero and, in aggregate, their environmental
impact is not trivial. Though we do not have measured gures to corroborate
the impact of LEED on these buildings, we assume that their achievement is half
that of a certied project.
Even this might be conservative due to other free-driver effects of the system.
For example, anecdotal evidence that many projects design to LEED but dont
bother to register. In addition, we do not give any credit to LEED for driving
improvements in the ASHRAE standards. From 1989 to 1999 there were no
changes or improvements in ASHRAE 90.1, but since LEED was introduced
in 2000, which used ASHRAE 90.1 as the core of its energy performance
requirements, the standard has been upgraded in 2001, 2004 and again, this
year. 2007, Moreover, ASHRAE 189 is a green building model code inspired by
LEED.
International Projects The number of overseas LEED projects has grown to
represent over 28 percent of all the oor area in the system. However, because
of the infeasibility of developing environmental performance baselines for the
more than 100 countries where LEED projects are registered, the commercial
model evaluates only the environmental impacts of green buildings in the U.S.
As an order of magnitude, however it would be safe to say that the global
environmental impact of LEED is at least 20 percent larger than is reported here.
Environmental Impact Calculations We used credit achievement data from
nearly 3,000 LEED-certied Projects certied since 2006. In each system we
know what percentage of projects are awarded for each credit. To determine
the average achievement of a typical LEED building, we take this percentage
of achievement and apply it to the level of performance to get a weighted
average savings amount, which we then multiply that a baseline as described in
each section below. Where credits had several tiers, we calculated the marginal
achievement at each level by subtracting the next highest tier from the previous
one. For example, if 70 percent of projects achieve MR4.1 and 50 percent of
projects achieve MR4.2, then we know that 20 percent of projects achieve only
MR4.1. If MR4.1 has 10 percent green materials and 4.2 has 20 percent, then on
average we know that (.2*.1)+(.5*.2) an average LEED project has 12 percent
green materials. We use this gure across the value of materials for projects that
are LEED-certied and Built-to LEED.
30
Site/Land-Use Impacts Methodology For the various site-related impacts,
we calculate an average plot size based on average project oor area and an
estimated average oor-area ratio (FAR) for each project. From this we calculate
the reductions in erosion runoff, site disturbance, heat islands, etc.
According to research by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and
the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, location-efcient
developmenta combination of density and transit accessibilityresults in a
30
As a conservatism, Built-to LEED projects are assumed to have half of the green impact of a LEED-
certied building.
30 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and a 44 percent reduction
in trip generation, respectively. We use a somewhat conservative gure of 35
percent VMT reduction as a proxy for the range of measures used in LEED for
reduce travel demand.
WATER SAVINGS
We derived baseline water consumption gures from the recently released 2005
US Geological Survey (USGS) gure for daily water use in order to obtain an
annual per square foot gure for water consumption in commercial buildings.
This served as a baseline case against which LEED water savings were measured.
Plumbing and Cooling Tower Savings: To derive water savings estimates from
this end-use, we took a weighted average of the percentage of water saved
in LEED buildings based on the percentage of projects that have achieved
specic credit ratings and quantiable (20 percent or 30 percent) water
savings requirements. In order to ascertain total savings, we rst multiplied the
percentage savings by the baseline gallons of water consumed per square foot
of commercial space. Taking climate disparities into considerationi.e. warmer
climates demand more air conditioning, and thus buildings in warm climates
use more water in cooling tower applicationsas well as the water consumption
levels that differ according to the age of buildings, we conservatively took 13
gallons of water per square foot per day as the baseline number against which
we compared NC and CS buildings, and 22 gallons against which we compared
existing buildings. We nally used the derived gallons of water per square foot
per day saved in green buildings and multiplied it by total LEED oor area to
yield an aggregate gure.
For cooling tower savings, we had pretty good idea about water use for
plumbing and for landscaping, as well as total consumption. The rest we
assumed was for cooling towers between 33 & 37 gallons per square foot per
day depending on the type of building. We compared this aggregate gure
with some cooling tower water saving case studies and found pretty good
agreement. Water savings we assumed were proportional to energy savings.
Landscaping Water Reductions To derive landscaping-related water savings,
we similarly took a weighted average of the percentage of water saved in LEED
buildings based on the percentage of projects that have achieved quantied
landscaping water reductions. In order to ascertain total savings, we rst
multiplied the percentage savings times the baseline gallons of water consumed
on landscaping per square foot of commercial space to get the per square foot
savings. As with plumbing and cooling tower use, we took geographic water
consumption disparities into consideration, and conservatively used 10 gallons
of water per square foot per day as the baseline number of water used for
landscaping. We nally took the derived gallons of water per square foot saved
in landscaping of green buildings and multiplied it by total LEED oor area to
yield an aggregate gure.
Wastewater Reductions Wastewater gures were derived in a similar fashion,
using an average of 55 gallons of water generated per square foot daily in
commercial buildings. Considering that implied reduction in usage from efcient
cooling towers is not included, the nal estimated savings are believed to be a
conservative estimate.
Correction of 2009 wastewater numbers. Upon review of the 2009 numbers
we found several methodological issues and errors which we have corrected in
this version, but because these mistakes reduce the total waste water volume
savings so much that we felt we needed to put forward the recalculated
numbers as a basis for comparison. These gures are summarized and compared
with the original wastewater reduction numbers in the table above. Perhaps
the largest source of ination of the wastewater gures was using the values
for landscape water reduction, which had much higher penetration, than the
actual incidence for the wastewater reduction credit. In addition, we mistakenly
projected the wastewater reduction credit from the original LEED EB out
through 2030, when there is now no such credit in EBOM V2 or V3. We simply
have multiplied to cumulative amount for the 2010 value for the additional
years, with a small factor for project retirement.
Energy Methodological Issues We continued to use the 2003 CBECS
(Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey) report as the primary data
source for Base Case primary energy, as opposed to DOEs Buildings Energy
Data Book (BEDB). We felt that CBECS provided a more consistent and survey-
based data source across the range of calculations than the BEDB, which
combines survey data with calculations. Unfortunately, the 2007 CBECS data is
still not available, though the rumor is that the mean EUI for year 2000 to date
buildings went up compared to 2003. This is actually not surprising given that
is exactly what happened between the 1992 CBECS and the 1995 CBECS for
1990s buildings as shown in the table below.
90s Buildings -
Cohorts
EUI-Site
Energy
EUI-Primary
Energy Source
1992 CBECS
90-92
69 157
Table 3.2-Total Energy
Consumption by Major Fuel,
1992
1995 CBECS
90-92
31
115 242
Consumption Tables
90-95 105 225
Consumption Tables
1999 CBECS-90s 98 220
Table C1: Total Energy
Consumption by Major Fuel
2003 CBECS-90s 89 201
2003 CBECS Table C1 (Non-
Mall Buildings) p. 249
2003 CBECS
00-03
80 187
2003 CBECS Table C1 (Non-
Mall Buildings) p. 249
2010 Savings & Baseline Estimates vs. 2008 & 2009 Report The two tables
below compare the underlying information behind the calculated energy
savings.
31
Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS)
The data from nearly 3,000 LEED-certied project scorecards provided the
percentage savings for the report. Because we had so much more data this year,
we did not feel as though we needed to present high and low cases for the
energy savings.
Renewable Energy Savings Methodology We used the breakdown of LEED
projects that have attained various percentages of on-site renewable energy
generation to obtain a weighted average of total renewable source electricity
green buildings have contributed. We introduced a 20 percent measurement
adjustment for LEED CS oor area to reect the smaller baseline of consumption
and to account for potential double-counting of LEED CI projects. Finally, we
assumed that all renewable energy associated with LEED EB/EBOM came in the
form of RECs and not on-site generated electricity.
Commissioning This year, as an additional conservatism, we have assumed
that the value of commissioning and M&V is represented in the energy savings
only. Although less than 25 percent of the 640+ buildings in the updated
2009 LBNL report on the value of commissioning were commissioned in the
context of LEED, we assume that the value of energy and non-energy benets
resulting from commissioning are embedded in the LEED energy savings results.
Consistent with this approach we also assumed that the achievement of M&V
credits contributed exclusively to the persistence of energy savings and do not
represent an independent benet of LEED.
Base Case-
Primary Energy
(kBtu/SF)
% Savings in
LEED Projects
LEED Primary
Energy Savings
(kBtu/SF)
2010 & 2009 2008 2010 2009 & 2008 2010 2009 & 2008
LEED NC 2.0, 2.1 209
32
241 23% 22-31% 48.5 60-75
LEED NC 2.2 194
33
24% 16-24% 46 33-49
CS 2.0 77
34
241 17% 15-31% 33 12-15
EB/EBOM 191
35
241 33% 28-37% 63 54-71
CI 17% 14.1 14.1
31
Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS)
32
Consistent with primary energy use in buildings built in the1990s per 2003 CBECS.
33
Consistent with primary energy use in buildings built in the 2000s per 2003 CBECS. Though we believe
this dataset is too small to be reliable and that actual energy use in this cohort may be higher than the
initial reporting, we use this gure as a conservatism.
34
Assumed to be 40 percent of New Construction baseline to reect smaller portion of load addressed
by the standard.
35
Consistent with primary energy use in all buildings surveyed in the 2003 CBECS, including mall
buildings.
Conservatisms in Energy Calculation Given the range of inconsistent data
sources, we continue to be conservative in our calculation methods. When
ranges of impacts of LEED measures were calculated, we used the low gures
derived. In addition, we only based our savings on the LEED requirement, as
opposed to thresholds actually achieved. For example, if a project purchased
renewable electricity to cover 75 percent of its needs, that project only would
be quantied at the 50 percent LEED threshold. Similarly, projects achieving
energy efciency credit in between the point thresholds are assumed to save at
the lower level. In addition, we assume no free driver effectsfor example,
improvements in the ASHRAE 90.1 standard or the development of ASHRAE
Standard 189.
Materials For most of the materials items (recycled content, rapidly renewable,
etc. but not wood or low-emitting materials) we estimated an average
construction cost per square foot based on Census data for value put in place
and the estimated oor area built during the last ten years. We then used the
default materials value in LEED45 percent of total costsas a proxy for the
value of construction materials. Then as per the methodology described above,
we took the oor area-weighted penetration of each standard times the tiered
LEED requirement. For example, if rapidly renewable materials for 5 percent
of material value had a 5 percent penetration in a particular standard, then we
would multiply 5 percent by 5 percent times the oor area times the average
value of construction for that type of oor areaboth Core & Shell and CI had
fractional values of the average New Construction oor area cost.
IEQ Methodology To determine the number of employees currently enjoying
better IEQ through green building design, we began by using the CBECS gure
for commercial oor space per employee. Determining the average number of
employees was a simple expression of the total oor space divided by the per
employee oor space. This gure probably understates the actual number of
people who work in an average LEED building, but we use it as a conservatism.
The green building workforce gure was then multiplied by the
implementation rateor the percentage of oor space affected by various
IEQ-related improvements. For example, improved ventilation effectiveness
was implemented by roughly 25 percent of LEED projects, so the number of
employees affected by this feature would be roughly one-fourth the total green
building workforce. Then these workforce gures were averaged to get the nal
gure.
Using Department of Commerce gures to determine average annual earnings
of the employed workforce. This value is less than half of the average salary
gures from the University of San Diego (USD) survey of 124 buildings. Given an
increasing convergence around the 5 percent productivity number from various
studies, we used the 4.88 percent productivity found by the USD study of CBRE
buildings. Additionally, this calculation excludes some green building-related
health benets such as fewer reported sick days, increasing its conservatism.
36
For CS we used 70 percent the NC value and for CI we used 30 percent.
A
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
Rob Watson is the Executive Editor of GreenerBuildings.com, the one-stop
website for the green design, construction and operation of commercial
and institutional buildings. GreenerBuildings.com is produced by GreenBiz
Group, the leading media and business information services company focused
exclusively on the greening of mainstream business.
Described by Thomas Friedman as one of Americas best environmental
minds, Watson also serves as the Chairman, CEO & Chief Scientist of the
EcoTech International Group, which helps clients around the world achieve cost-
effective high performance green buildings through design, technology and
operations.
Under Robs direction as the Founding Father of LEED and as its national
Steering Committee Chairman between 1994 and 2005, the U.S. Green Building
Councils LEED rating system became the most widespread and fastest-growing
standard by which green buildings are measured worldwide. A pioneer of the
modern green building movement for over 20 years, in 2007 Rob founded
the EcoTech International Group to meet the fast-growing demand for green
building technologies and services in China, India and the U.S.
Diversey, Inc. is committed to a cleaner, healthier future. Its products, systems
and expertise make food, drink and facilities safer and more hygienic for
consumers and for building occupants. With sales into more than 175 countries,
Diversey is a leading global provider of commercial cleaning, sanitation and
hygiene solutions. The company serves customers in the building management,
lodging, food service, retail, health care, and food and beverage sectors.
Diversey is headquartered in Sturtevant, Wisconsin, USA. Diversey, Inc. is
formerly JohnsonDiversey, Inc. To learn more, visit www.diversey.com
DNV is a global provider of services for managing risk, helping customers
to safely and responsibly improve their business performance. We offer
assessment services related to green building, and energy efciency strategies
including Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), ASHRAE
90.1, California Title-24, Energy Star, ISO 50001. Visit www.dnv.us for more
information.
As a global specialist in energy management with operations in more than 100
countries, Schneider Electric offers integrated solutions across multiple market
segments, including leadership positions in energy and infrastructure, industrial
processes, building automation, and data centers/networks, as well as a broad
presence in residential applications. Focused on making energy safe, reliable,
and efcient, the companys 100,000+ employees achieved sales of more than
$22 billion in 2009, through an active commitment to help individuals and
organizations Make the most of their energy. Visit www.schneider-electric.us
to learn more.
A
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

s
p
o
n
s
o
r
s
GreenBiz Group is the leading media and business information services
company focusing on the greening of mainstream business. In addition to
our award-winning website, GreenBiz.com, GreenBiz Group also produces
research, including the annual State of Green Business report and the Green
Building Market and Impact Report; events, including the State of Green
Business Forums and the GreenBiz Innovation Forum; and the GreenBiz
Executive Network, a peer-to-peer learning forum for senior sustainability
executives.
More information: www.greenbizgroup.com.
A
b
o
u
t

G
r
e
e
n
B
i
z

G
r
o
u
p
Dening and accelerating the business of sustainability.

Green Building Market Impact Report - 2010

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Green Building Market Impact Report - 2010

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

by ROB WATSON

Você também pode gostar